22 Responses to “Bigfoot and High Strangeness”

From almost all accounts, Bigfoot is a living breathing creature. One has to ask themselves, is it more probable than not, that Bigfoot is an undiscovered hominid rather than a genetically egineered creature to do the bidding of EBTs from a UFO?

Seriously, it almost sounds like ancient aliens where they base one supposition upon another. If this occurs, and if, if, if, if!!! Just ridiculous! This goes nowhere!

What is the most logical theory is where one should stay focused. They should base that theory on evidence. And through the scientific method and deduction, we can clearly say what it is and what it is not. And this UFO theory is what it is not! Little to no evidence exists in that respect.

We should stay away from Bigfoot being an interdimentional creature. Even if it were possible, String Theory is just that, a theory. It is a “what if” based upon another what if. Simply ludicrous!

Anyway, we should be looking into whether alleged Bigfoots are relic hominids based upon it being a biological entity. Witnessed say it eats animals and plants. Do the offspring of angels need to eat? Bigfoots are said to defecate. Do interdimensional beings do that? What proof is there of interdimensional beings or other dimensions for that matter?

C’mon people! I know these TV shows are entertainment. I know these TV shows stimulate the imagination. However, we must be realistic and live in the world of reality rather than imagination.

Craig. Dude. Seriously, from one Texan to another, you need to clarify your intent with these last couple of posts. Folks are getting concerned that the fringe elements of an already precariously marginalized group have been taking over this site since Loren left.

First, I’m with Craig. It’s not his job to censor what kinds of cryptid news hits this site, but to put it out there and let us hash it out. That’s objective reporting–something the news seems to have forgotten (alright I won’t go there–that’s a book anyway). That’s why I like Cryptomundo–it throws everything out there–even the pics and blobsquatches we can pick apart to the bones, maybe especially because of those because it helps all of us to be critical thinkers instead of tag alongs.

Second. Photo Expert–you’ve got it and nailed it. I saw that show when it aired and what bugs me about that kind of “testimony” is that people are willing to take one incident and then make a huge string of suppositions. Well he saw a silver disk and then a light and then a Bigfoot. Then the woman decides that

a) it’s an alien construct, and
b) that is put down on the earth,
c) to do work unknown, and
d) that explains why there’s sightings of Bigfoots in so many places.

I could go on for pages on what a thin house of cards that logic is based on. You’ve got one witness (and since we don’t know anything about said witness, we don’t know if said witness is even credible), and off of that make a long line guesses based on a single unsubstantiated premise.

And, we’re supposed to buy into that instead of the idea that there might be a flesh and blood critter running around just because no one seems to be able to come up with incontrovertible proof. Really?

Yeah, that America’s Book of Secrets and the Destination America shows were suspect at best.

I always thought of String Theory as the Ponzi Scheme of Physics–“Hey, the numbers don’t work!”–“Oh, just create another dimension.” Unlike the Madoffs and money, you can’t run out of plausible dimensional carve outs. They’re infinite.

As to the looney stuff that has recently appeared, Bigfoot and flying monkeys, mermaids, I can understand the entertainment aspect of running a web sight, but I do agree with others, esp. Photo and Jack, that it does detract from a cogent discussion of cryptids.

I suspect there is an old buddy (read “fart”) network among the Fortean speaking circuit that kind of props each other up. So thus, the UFO, Ghostbusters, psychic BS overlapping.

The question of Bigfoot to me is a simple one: Is there an unknown large bipedal animal existing in North America or not. If so, fascinating. If not, still fascinating, because what and why are people seeing what they’re seeing. Both are legitimate possibilities, and the only way to determine which it is, is scientific research. That is just beginning to happen, and totally unrelated and unsubstantiated mumbo jumbo like inter dimensions don’t help.

I understand the concept of sharing all information relevant to a topic but there comes a point when you have to draw a line. Is this blog about searching for unknown animals (as the definition of cryptozoology implies) or is it about the paranormal and other Fortean subjects. I realize there is some overlap here but there doesn’t need to be. I would hope a serious blog on crytozoology would know what is possibly relevant evidence on a cryptid or some scientific breakthrough and what is just pure garbage.

There is no doubt that the crypto world is plagued by whack jobs and hoaxers, why give them any attention? Would a zoology blog stray this far from it’s core subject matter of discussing animal life? Why should this one? Why in our search for real and relevant information on an unknown animal, be it sasquatch or that new porcupine from South America should we have to wade through all this garbage? It’s daunting and frankly gotten to the point around here where 90% of the posts are nothing more than filler and non-sense. Why am I reading posts about alien bigfoot instead of posts on, you know…newly discovered animal species?

Cryptozoology is supposed to be the search for unknown animals. It validates itself on the discovery of the okapi, coelacanth and mountain gorilla. Is this really a scientific branch of zoology or is it something else? What relevance does “high strangeness” have within this subject? No wonder the scientific community does not take this seriously when crap like this is considered news worthy.

Well, some interesting comments here. I’ll need to read them but first wanted to skip down here and say ABSOLUTELY POST STUFF LIKE THIS.

If cryptozoology is ever going to become what it should be – zoology – it needs to attract the right kind of thinking, i.e., scientific thinking. And just as with flies, one attracts more with sugar than with [bigfoot spoor].

One brings people attracted to all kinds of stuff attached, loosely or otherwise, to crypto. And one hopes they stay for the good stuff, and listen to critiques (like these) of…well, this stuff.

And, you know, think about it some.

(Jeff Meldrum: love ya, man. The potential Einstein of the field. Problem, though, when one peruses The Relict Hominoid Inquiry. The problem, Jeff baby: readership. Driven by: material, baby, material. Too many slow news days over there at RHI. Not a slam, not, NOT A SLAM. Love ya, just sayin’.)

Cryptomundo might add something new every, like, five days if only serious stuff came in here. Actually, maybe not even weekly. And I have commented – sometimes seriously, sometimes not – many more times than once on something I was sure I wouldn’t open at all first time my eyeballs traveled over it.

So keep it up!

(This one: high strangeness and sasquatch are not serious bedfellows. Let’s verify a bipedal primate, using search protocols known to the primatology field for decades now. Ciao.)

To address the posts by Craig and SHJack above, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the purpose of Cryptomundo to promote the study and discussion of cryptozoology? Shouldn’t “study” encompass at least some pretense at legitimate, scientific method?

Publishing about these ultra-fringe theories does not promote the legitimate study of cryptids. Theories such as bigfoot came from UFOs, the species has interdimensional characteristics or abilitiies, or psychic powers, etc… are based upon sensationalism and are purely speculative, with no foundation in real world evidence. The skeptic general public, often largely ignorant of the quantity of genuine evidence in support of particular cryptids, is likely to find articles like this one and conclude that the field is one dominated by conspiracy theorists and wackos. Giving the extremist elements any attention at all is likely to result in loss of credence of those who are concerned with promoting the serious study of cryptids.

“All publicity is good publicity” may apply in the entertainment field to celebrities desiring to bask in the limelight, but it is not an apt adage to apply to the scientific field. Failure to exercise some reasonable discretion will certainly result in loss of credibility.

springheeledjack–Hey buddy! How have you been? I have seen you posting frequently now. Long ago, after reading one of your first posts, I told you I was going to follow your posts because I enjoyed them. And I have kept my word!

Thank you springheeledjack! Yes, I think I nailed it too. LOL As usual, we see eye to eye again. You know, it is like you, I and DWA are cut from the same exact mold. We are in the camp of objectivity, neither being believers or skeptics. We let the facts, data and evidence take us to where it goes and leads us. We evaluate, use logic, and come to conclusions by deduction and the process of elimination.

Honestly, I have nothing against any theory, no matter how ridiculous it may be. But by the same token, if that theory does not provide proof, evidence, data and only offers up supposition after supposition, I must disregard that theory as bunk! And while chasing those theories, it takes time away from more grounded theories. Seriously, the task of just documenting Bigfoot is hard enough. Now, some geniuses want us to track them in a spacecraft through time and dimensions. OMG, that is driving me nuts!

I’m on board with those who are concerned with where this is heading. It’s bad enough there are Biscardis and Dyers muddying the water; but it seems to me anyone interested in research is being pushed aside in favor of sensationalism, profit and someone’s 15 minutes of fame. I believe a certain tv show has a lot to answer for in that regard. “Step right up and get your Squatch® gear on so-and-so website…”

I’m hoping those who are simply riding this train as a fad, soon grow bored with it and find something else they can license and sell…

Ok, so this may seem far-fetched, but I’m throwing it out there for chewin’ on anyway, because I have heard more than one referenced connection between Sas and UFOs………..

I’ve read several reports regarding UFO abduction “memories” where supposedly fetuses were taken from women abductees and later “shown” what they thought to be their hybrid offspring. I think Budd Hopkin’s book “The Intruders”might have mentioned this. The women were revisited by their abductors, taken aboard a craft and introduced to their “child” or “children”.

So, let’s pretend, for argument’s sake, that UFO occupants (if they do indeed exist) did experiment with combining their own genes with human ones. Perhaps they have also tried combining human genes with that of apes or gorillas.

If they did some experimenting on those lines, then perhaps they come back from time to time to check on their “results”. While as “out there” (pun intended) as this sounds, this might be a possible explanation for the various reports by seemingly credible witnesses. I even recall vaguely, one report where the witness claims to have seen a Bigfoot inside a UFO looking out through the portal window!

Grasshopper, your theory would be somewhat consistent with what Melba Ketchum is claiming with her DNA study, asserting that sasquatch is the product of some unknown male hominoid mating with female humans 15,000 years ago.

However, Ketchum’s theory seems to me to be as well-grounded in reality as the UFO connection (I find your claim of reports by “credible witnesses” to be doubtful). Furthermore, I am unaware of anyone confirming the accuracy of her sasquatch DNA work and theories. Has any scientist reviewed her work and published commentary on it?

Grasshopper–I see where you are going with this. I am in total support of witness testimony, however, that is with a caveat. The caveat is, that the witness must be credible. That means that they should not have a psychological problem, or br under the influence when the event occurred, or hypnotized, or hypnotic regression therapy.

So, lets say we throw out those witnesses with psychological problems and who may be under the influence at the time of the event. That leaves us with what you are suggesting, patients under hypnosis. And what can happen and does happen, is that they are relying on “memories” as you stated.

Unfortunately, those are probably “false memories”. This type of regression analysis and hypnotic recall is not endorsed by most in the psychological community. Why? Because under hypnosis, it has been proven through documented studies that people make up stories, vivid stories, with extreme detail, that could not possibly be.

I have read several of these studies conducted by leading psychologists and psychiatrists. Here is one example, through several test patients that believed they lived past lives, more than one claimed to be Napolean. Could one of them actually lived a past life as Napolean? Possibly. However, several people could not have been Napolean as there was only one Napolean. So a couple of those patients were claiming to be Napolean but that could not possibly be. So they recalled in detail, ficticious past lives through hypnotic regression. There’s your proof that this hypnotic recollection is not dependable. In fact, it has been proven and documented as bunk. What keeps it alive is that maybe one of them is telling the truth. But I doubt it, since the others were proven not to be so.

Memories are tricky things, even more so under hypnosis. And because of that and the proof that regression therapy is not science or has been proven unreliable and disproven by science, how can one take those “memories” as evidence? You can’t!

So I do hear what you are saying. And I am glad you thought outside of the box. However, in this instance, that outside the box thinking has already been proven to be impossible in the vast majority of cases.

I believe that under hypnosis, the brains of these people filled in elaborate details and made up an evidential story which seemed logical and plausible. However, it never truly happened. Hence, it is not evidence of anything except that our brains are awesomely creative, especially under hypnosis when all inhibitions are removed as barriers.

But a good post from you nonetheless! Always and continue to think outside the box! I disagree with your supposition but I applaud your thinking!

asecretcountry–LOL I definitely appreciate your sarcasm. But can we talk here? Seriously?

I followed your link and read that article. It is not from a scientifcally accredited journal. It is from Mutual UFO Network UFO Journal, November 1998, pp. 8-10.

Really, that is your evidence? I’ll tell you what, I will take your suggestion and ignore everything you told us to, in your post. Because if that is your proof, I’ll take the word of Jeff Meldrum, the fossil record pertaining to great apes, countless eyewitnesses, footprint casts, Sasquatch scat, hair samples, and inconclusive DNA findings from reputable labs over this bunk from a UFO Monthly. LOL

You can turn those questionable statistics offered at your link for just that–highly questionable. Since it was not published in a reputable scientific journal but more of a monthly magazine for believers in UFOs, it was not held to peer review. In fact, your authors failed to list or site their data. Hey, I can interpret statistics and make them support my cause. I can twist them to my benefit. And so could these two PhDs who remind me of hippies on the West Coast. But to each his own.

Funny thing is, I think there is sufficient data to say that there are probably ETBs that account for some UFO sightings. I would not argue with you there. But to say that Bigfoot are those ETBs, well, sorry, I don’t see it and the evidence does not back up that theory.

So you are saying they can travel hundreds of light years, have that kind of unbelievable technology, but we can see them and their best defense is to hide? If they had that kind of technology, we would not even see them. And you might want to do some reading on parallel evolution. Because Bigfoot, differs from the Yeti, and Yowie and the Yeren, just as much as German cockroaches differ from hissing cockroaches. They are similar yet vastly different in certain aspects.

Sorry bud, I am not buying into the BS you propose here. Real scientific evidence just does not back up that theory while it does back more practical theories. In my theory, one only has to prove a relic hominid exists. In yours, we have to prove interstellar travel at the speed of light, ETB entities, string theory along with interdimensional theory and many other things not even validated by science. In my theory, we have to prove that an unknown apelike creature exists. Go back to last century. We had the same reports, etc, and we discovered gorillas.

The evidence you supply from a UFO believer’s monthly magazine written by two guys that remind me of hippies, is cool but not scientifically proven. I know, I know, Bigfoot is not proven yet either. But my theory holds more hope and reality than the one you present. So I will take your advice and just forget it!

asecretcountry, you sounded like me for a minute there but as far fetched as I find sasquatch to be your proposal is even more unbelievable. I too find it telling that not a single sasquatch (or yowie, yeren, Chinese wild-man, yeti) has not been found but that lack of evidence only tells me that the animal likely does not exist…period. If it does exist it’s range is much less than what we suspect but if that is true we would have to discount a lot of the best evidence we have. Take your pick. It’s a thin house of cards.

That said. At least there is evidence. Not very good evidence (no bones, no conclusive DNA, no body, not even good photographs) but evidence all the same. There are tracks, some questionable footage, alleged hair and scat. All of these COULD be from a sasquatch but there is zero evidence that sasquatch is from space. If all you have to go on is eyewitness testimony then you fail. I don’t care how credible that witness is. Like Carl Sagan said (and you’ve all heard), extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sasquatch is extraordinary enough by itself, lets keep ourselves a little grounded here.

Thanks Craig for posting this sort of topic..sure sorts the wheat from the chaff in who has thought about this subject.

Hi Photoexpert

With that “modest” user name, in this field..you surely wouldn’t be flat out analysing anything right.? 🙂

I followed your link and read that article. It is not from a scientifcally accredited journal.

LOL
Its an article about statistics and correlations.
By Physicist James Spottiswoode..who didn’t care either way what the outcome was..
I must have missed the “we have a sasquatch body” science paper.
Would a cooked ketchum style purchased journal article have been better for you.?
Anyway, we both know that even if it had been published, you would have ignored it.
You had no choice.
But seriously…either find a problem with the stats..or.. 🙂
Your best arguments are condensed too ..a sad and lame appeal to authority using Jeff Meldrums name.
All that time on this board..and that was it.???
The cupboard must be bare right.?
And there is no species id from a body in a published journal so no hand waving of supposed evidence.
And bits of plaster..yep..that explains why no body.
The stats based on FACTS are only “questionable” because you cannot accept them..big deal..

Hey, I can interpret statistics and make them support my cause.

Your analysis of stats would be interesting if you had a science/maths background..but we both know you don’t..so..
And you willingly admit, on a public board..that you would try and cook the books to get a result that would support your cause.
Amazing.. 🙁
I am sorry you didn’t understand what you briefly read so I will explain it.
I didn’t interpret anything..its the stats themselves.
And there is no way you can “interpret” these stats differently unless you find a problem with the raw data or the stats themselves.
Use their data and try and explain why the correlation cannot exist.
Aint going to happen..end of story..
Thats the beauty of the net..people can be called out right off the bat.

But to say that Bigfoot are those ETBs, well, sorry, I don’t see it and the evidence does not back up that theory.
So you are saying they can travel hundreds of light years, have that kind of unbelievable technology, but we can see them and their best defense is to hide?

Straw man games..
Why ask me rhetorical questions..I never said it..go and argue with the film people.

Sorry bud, I am not buying into the BS you propose here.

I realise that rote “response” gets you brownie points with “the gang” here..(as they hide)but pats on the back wont save you. 🙂
Yep..instead of answering my queries and defending your religiously held views….you wheel out the big guns of intellectual debate…
And that was…drum roll…..= “BS”.
Wow..you really thought this stuff through. 🙂

We had the same reports, etc, and we discovered gorillas.

100% Clueless about this subject…yet you are forever posting here..how does that work.???
Its the worst analogy any flesh and blood devotee (with no body)can use.
Its been refuted so many times its scary you dragged it out.
Gorillas seen by german hunter on slope..two shot dead and carried out within hours,
And that consoles you with the no body on several continents for hundreds of years.. 🙂
Bizarre..

But my theory holds more hope and reality than the one you present. So I will take your advice and just forget it!<

Its all built around “hope” isn’t it…and nothing else..thats sad…. 🙁
Your “theory” was just ripped apart in my post..its dead..”BS” sort of doesn’t cut any mustard as a response from an adult.
Sorry..
You have to forget the holes I punched through your belief system.
Which you and the gang will do…I am sure..see death bed gag in my original post. 🙂
For this belief of yours to survive inside your head you HAVE to lack the intellectually honesty and admit you cannot answer even one of my “minor” problems.
I understand that and accept that.

Hi aslo63

If it does exist it’s range is much less than what we suspect but if that is true we would have to discount a lot of the best evidence we have.

Huh..if it doesn’t exist how does that make its range smaller…(scratches head)..discounting what?..one film and some bits of plaster.
No body and my problems with the flesh and blood paradigm means it is dead in the water.

All of these COULD be from a sasquatch but there is zero evidence that sasquatch is from space.

Read my..post..I never said it was..

If all you have to go on is eyewitness testimony then you fail.

“all”…?????lol..read my post..
You didn’t answer one of my points re the weakness of the f/b belief system..so..your out tiger..
And if you want to have a go at eyewitnesses then there goes your whole meme anyway as well.

You can quote Sagan..and have no extraordinary evidence for sasquatch,,yet still bring up the chance it might be there..oh..dear.
I am being grounded..
Its either fake or weird/paranormal.
Sorry..the data/lack of data point to no other conclusion.
Thats why the cricket noises from the gang here.. 🙂
One man stepped up to the plate for the team…”photoexpert”…and it was ugly..
Might be better to send someone else next time!!.. 🙂
Truth is ugly…but thats the way it is..
End of story..
bye

asecretcountry–My, oh my, looks like I have struck a nerve with you. LOL Of course I did, I can tell by your emotional reply. And that is what my post was meant to do and why it was directed at you.

However, to my disappointment, you made many incorrect statements and suppositions that I will have to now correct here. I don’t want you looking like an idiot, but when someone posts untrue statements, I must correct them for the record. So here goes as I address your ludicrous and infactual statements.

First, my moniker or user name, is what I am referred to in courts of law in the US. I am a Photographic Expert. At least that is what they call me and refer to me as, both the prosecution, defense, and the judge. I do not know if the name could be considered modest, as I did not bestow it upon myself. That is what the judges refer to me as. I just use it here at Cryptomundo. You must be psychic, because you read so much more into a simple moniker than need be. You sound a bit defensive or jealous, but I understand. I have met other people with inferiority complexes that sound very similar to you and your post. Now that we have that straightened out, we can move on.

Yes, I stated the article you referred to was not from a scientifically accredited journal. And you confirm that! So where was I wrong about that?You actually copied and pasted what I posted and agreed with me. LOL OK

You go on to state, “Anyway, we both know that even if it had been published, you would have ignored it.” OK, so you agree with me again. Why post all these sentences where you keep agreeing with me. What is the purpose? That is not argument, that is called agreement. You agree with me! LOL You are a funny person, but in a good way. Defensive but still funny as you agree with my facts.

Shall we proceed to your next erroneous and incorrect statement? You stated, ” Your analysis of stats would be interesting if you had a science/maths background..but we both know you don’t..so..”

Uh-hem, uh, I actually do have a scientific background. I do not know what a “maths” background is, as you state, but I do have a scientific background dealing with optical physics and statistical analysis. I have posted that several times before. If you want to go there and take me on, feel free. I would enjoy it. Unfortunately, you lack the skills to be put up to that task. You may try. But good luck with that! You must have been asleep or not here at Cryptomundo that long. So what you think you know about me is not actually that much. I don’t want you to misperceive this as bragging or lacking modesty, so just take it as fact. In other words, you are sooooo wrong, again! But here is the good news, when you state something true or factual, I will confirm it and let you know. So far, we are still waiting.

ascretcountry, you further stated, “Use their data and try and explain why the correlation cannot exist.’

LOL, as I stated before, there was no study or data listed or I would have obliged. I would need to know the size of their sample group, the raw numbers, their hypothesis and conclusion. What you posted as a link was 2 page article on pages 8-10 of some obscure UFO believers’ magazine. I am not going to waste my time analyzing that. And even if I did attempt it, I would need the data genius. So yes, you are correct when you said, “That ain’t going to happen, end of story…” Correct you are sir!

I stated: “So you are saying they can travel hundreds of light years, have that kind of unbelievable technology, but we can see them and their best defense is to hide?”

And your response was: ” Straw man games..
Why ask me rhetorical questions..I never said it..go and argue with the film people.”

Ahem, I don’t really play games. And no, it was not a rhetorical question. It was a real question I proposed to you. You failed to answer it. So I will ask it again. Maybe you can seriously answer that for all of us. Here goes again: So you are saying they can travel hundreds of light years, have that kind of unbelievable technology, but we can see them and their best defense is to hide?

Now don’t answer that with “straw man games”. Come up with a well thought out and intelligent response that at least tries to stay in the realm of reality.

Moving on, I stated, “Sorry bud, I am not buying into the BS you propose here. ”

So what is wrong with that statement? You supply no facts, no studies, obscure 2 page article written by what I consider hippies and you answer with–“You really thought this stuff through.”

Really, you wanted me to take a 2 page article in some UFO believers magazine as serious science and analyze it? Nope, I don’t waste my time on BS. And my answer stands, this is BS! Sorry if that offends you. But if it smells like dog poop, and looks like dog poop, I don’t have to taste it to know it is dog poop. This is dog poop or BS. Again, you are incorrect. And I am not going to “think through” dog poop or BS. Who would? Oh, you would. Sorry!

I stated, “We had the same reports, etc, and we discovered gorillas.”

Your reply was: “100% Clueless about this subject…yet you are forever posting here..how does that work.???”

So, we didn’t discover gorillas last century as they had been reported prior to their discovery? Really? Wow! I learn something new every day. Unless what you said is pure crap. I’m betting on crap. So tell me Einstein, were there reports of gorillas before they were discovered and were they discovered last century? Thought so! Moron! I say that in an affectionate way though, because you may be intelligent even if you display moronic behavior or posts. This may be the case.

But then you try and prove me wrong by going on to say: “And that consoles you with the no body on several continents for hundreds of years..
Bizarre..”

Yes, exactly, thank you for stating my point. There were reports of gorillas for years until they were discovered. This could be the same with Bigfoot, since North American history is not as long as African history. But thanks, that is not bizarre, it is fact and thanks for acknowledging that fact.

Lastly, I stated: “But my theory holds more hope and reality than the one you present. So I will take your advice and just forget it!”

Your response or lack thereof is: Its all built around “hope” isn’t it…and nothing else..thats sad….
Your “theory” was just ripped apart in my post..its dead..”BS” sort of doesn’t cut any mustard as a response from an adult.
Sorry..
You have to forget the holes I punched through your belief system.

Nice rant! LOL Obviously, I have been around here for a long time. But more obvious to me and others reading this, you know little about me and even less about my postings here. I am always objective. I am not a believer or a militant sceptic. So, hope, as it is, never plays a part in any of my theories. They are all based on facts, and not some 2 page articles that you embrace. And yes, it does take an adult to call BS. I just did. Your theory is BS! And speaking of adult like behavior, it is also wise to know, assuming you are an adult–It is not, “cut the mustard” as you posted. It is “cut the muster”. See, I am objective and adult enough to point out child like grammar as well as child like theories you embrace.

Well, I think I have corrected you enough. However, you definitely have a big correction coming from me and probably many readers here. I MUST correct you once again for a major fallacy and offensive words in the end of your post.

You posted: “You have to forget the holes I punched through your belief system.
Which you and the gang will do…I am sure..see death bed gag in my original post.”

I already corrected you on me not having a belief system which would have been self evident if you had read more of my posts. What I am referring to is your use of the words “the gang”. What gang? That is offensive to all the intelligent individuals posting their opinions here at Cryptomundo. We post as independently thinking people. And yes, sometimes those ideas are agreement with one another. For instance, I agree with DWA 99% of his posts. Does that make him part of a gang or me part of a gang? NO! It’s just two very intelligent and probably extremely handsome individuals, agreeing with one another from thoughts derived independently. To assume there is a gang beating up on your BS theories is just not so! It is offensive to me and to all the other great posters here.

Now if what you meant by “gang” was numerous individuals who happen to disagree with your BS theory based on a 2 page article in a UFO believers’ magazine–then you would be right. A “gang” or bunch of people, the vast majority of the people living in the real world, definitely disagree with you!

Anyway, great discussing with you the incorrectness of your statements. And you are certainly entitled to your “beliefs”. Just don’t try to pawn them off as fact or scientific. And also know a little about the educational and professional background of the person you plan to argue with. You know, like saying I did not come from a scientific background or referring to the modesty of a person you know nothing about. When you do that, you look foolish, which you did! And for me, it was like you brought a pickle to a gunfight. I did not enjoy correcting your each and every statement, some of which you agreed with me and still agrued a point. That is frustrating to me and comical to most readers, you know, the “gang” you refer to them as.

I look forward to more of your posts. Thank you for giving me a break in my day. And hopefully, you will see the error of your beliefs. Or maybe, just maybe, you and the hippies will come up with proof of an interdimensional, star traveling, ETB in a flying saucer that disappears magically into thin air. Then you will have the last laugh. Psst, I am not holding my breath on that. And if you are, please breathe!